The beauty of libertarianism as a political ideology is that just like a time share property pitch, a lot of the initial talking points sound really great. Free markets, legalized drugs, an end to foreign wars, etc. It’s romantic in its belief in the invisible hand of the market, self-determination and appeals to the better instincts of humanity that if just left alone, we’ll all act in a manner which benefits everyone.

However, when libertarians are put in a position to defend the practicality of their ideology in the context of the real world, most reasonable people rapidly come to conclusion that libertarians are either batshit crazy or willfully stupid.

Rand Paul, as many of you know, is the son of Tea Party icon and idol to the libertarian fringe, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The younger Paul posted an overwhelming victory over the RNC endorsed candidate in the Republican primary earlier this week. Shortly after his victory and emergence onto the national scene, Paul appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show to discuss comments he made to the Louisville Courier-Journal prior to the primary election.

Essentially, Paul states that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as Title II of the act mandates that private businesses that provide/maintain public accommodations be forced to adhere to equal protection provisions. Paul maintains this provision of the act violates private property rights. He also states that he would not have supported the Americans with Disabilities Act as Title III of the act mandates that all private businesses with public accommodations make their places of business accessible to people with disabilities. He alleges that this also violates property rights.

In the interview, Paul states that he supports all other provisions of the act and I believe him. He states that mandates on institutionalized racism and discrimination can and should be legislated out of existence, but the implication is that private businesses should be allowed to post a “Whites Only” or “No Cripples Welcome Here” sign in their front window. Property rights are the holy grail of the libertarian movement, they shan’t be violated or restricted in any way. The mistake in this debate is casting Paul a racist, full stop. While property rights were used frequently by segregationists in the south during the fight for civil rights, I’m not sure it’s that simple an issue here. Paul and the worldview he supports is not about race, it’s about property rights and a philosophical, non-reality based ideology. In other words, he’s just a libertarian.

[HTML1]

and

[HTML2]

After the ensuing blowup of negative publicity for his campaign began today, Rand Paul eventually backed off his statements and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act and supports the Federal Government right to regulate private business. As noted by Talking Points Memo, here’s the timeline of the whole scandal:

So, by our reckoning, here’s Paul’s progression on the issue over the past 24 hours:

Paul on Maddow, circa 9 p.m. Wednesday: I don’t agree with the Civil Rights Act, but I don’t believe in racism.

Paul campaign statement, 2 p.m. Thursday: I support the law and the government’s power to enforce it.

Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: “I would have voted yes” for the law. “There was a need for federal intervention.”

As an aside, Rachel Maddow is one hell of a journalist. She did what no other broadcast journalist does…stayed with one topic, tried to force an issue and get an answer to a question that matters…respectfully and intelligently. She allows her guests to talk, but she never lets them off the hook. It’s compelling television.

I digress…

The interview and the emerging candidacy of Rand Paul brings several issues into the light of day. Should we not have a full vetting of the Libertarian agenda as a means to identify whether or not it has any chance of ever being adopted as anything other than a sideshow in our political circus? As a means to separate the nutty fringe wheat from the christian conservative chaff in the oft-discussed and analyzed tea party movement? Should we not fully educate people on where these people stand on issues of import?

So, here is a short list of questions for the local chapter of the Libertarian Dogmatics over at Political Class Dismissed and Tea New York. Yes or No answers are preferred, but I know I won’t get them, if they bother to answer at all.